In addition to the many elective offices on the ballot Tuesday, Pennsylvania’s voters will also get to decide whether judges can stay on the bench for an additional five years past the current retirement age of 70.
Except, of course, that you could be confused by the text of the ballot question:
“Shall the Pennsylvania Constitution be amended to require that justices of the Supreme Court, judges, and magisterial district judges be retired on the last day of the calendar year in which they attain the age of 75?”
The current retirement age is 70.
You’ll note that nowhere does it mention extending the retirement age — and lawsuit seeking to have the question tossed due to its “deceitful” wording was overruled by a 3-3 deadlocked ruling by the state Supreme Court earlier this year (Chief Justice Thomas Saylor, who turns 70 later this year, recused himself) — a lower court’s ruling in support of the ballot measure wording held sway. A suit continues in federal court on the matter.
In the spring primary, the question used the following language — until a last-minute move by the state legislature knocked if off the ballot:
“Shall the Pennsylvania Constitution be amended to require that justices of the Supreme Court, judges and justices of the peace (known as magisterial district judges) be retired on the last day of the calendar year in which they attain the age of 75 years, instead of the current requirement that they be retired on the last day of the calendar year in which they attain the age of 70?”
The question was removed — allegedly — because the wording was confusing. Really, it was because it was clear that the measure would lose and lose badly.
The rewording was nothing short of a weasel play to fix the outcome of the ballot question.
Were the measure to fail, it would mean just 19 judges statewide would have to retire from the $176,000 a year job — out of some 1,000 judges.
Here in Chester County, we have a Court of Common Pleas that bears no resemblance to the population — with just one, kind of, sort of Democrat — on the bench, despite more than a third of voters being registered Democrats. Extending retirement the retirement age for judges would only prolong this inequity. Also, there are no shortage of qualified attorneys to fill the spots — local elections for Court of Common Pleas are hotly contested, both in primaries and general elections.
There are lengthy arguments as to whether judges become more or less effective in office with time — we tend to think the downsides outweigh the positives.
Worse, though, it’s apparent that the State Legislature thinks you do, too, and worded the ballot question in such a way to confuse voters.
To be clear, the only sensible vote is “No.”
On Nov. 8, we recommend rejecting the judicial ballot question.
